Depicting the life of Abraham Lincoln, considered to be the greatest American of all time, was never going to be an easy task.

Even for Steven Spielberg, who many consider to be the greatest director of all time, the project wasn’t certain to be successful, the master filmmaker needed a starting point.

Just how do you implement so many elements of a fascinating, inspiring man, and the events that formed him, onto the screen in less than three hours without it feeling like a rush job?

The answer was to trim Lincoln’s life down and narrow the focus to a very particular, and arguably the most significant, point of his great life, the passing of the 13th Amendment.

This Amendment as history now tells us abolished slavery in America and effectively ended the country’s brutal civil war.

With that decision made and Doris Kearns Goodwin’s biography Team Of Rivals as his source, playwright Tony Kushner fashioned a script of Lincoln’s political life, focusing intensely on his struggles to pass his Amendment in the divided House of Representatives.

For the Amendment to pass, a two thirds majority vote was needed with Lincoln employing a crack team of lobbyists to persuade opposing Democrats to vote yes.
It is here where the film begins with the Civil War raging in the background and Lincoln’s second term as President about to begin.

Mounmental issues

What is most impressive about Lincoln is that the rather dull sounding premise of 19th century politicians arguing in darkened rooms for over two hours is made into riveting cinema.

This is more to do with the topic being discussed and how monumental it is, as opposed to the quality of the script, which although very good, is slightly explanatory and expositional at times, typical for an historical drama.

Spielberg expertly plays on the audiences emotions (there is no better director at this) and he reminds us of what is at stake, the fate of the African American people.

The director weaves tension into the narrative from the get go, there is immediate doubts about the Amendment’s chances, and he doesn’t shy away from the fact that America was incredibly racist at the time, even those who supported abolition still believed black people to be inferior.

Despite knowing that the Amendment will eventually pass, there is still an ever present anxiety in the viewers mind because of how Spielberg presents the huge opposition that Lincoln and his cabinet faced at the time.

When it does eventually succeed there is an overwhelming sense of joy and although it is sentimental and overly emotive, for which Spielberg’s films are often derided, it really is very effective.

Iconic performance

There was obvious pressure on Spielberg to pull off this mammoth task and he succeeds but so much of that is down to his leading man, Daniel Day Lewis.

Critics are running out of adjectives to describe the talent of Day Lewis, and he again delivers another iconic performance.

Everything about him is perfect, from the wooden ungracious movement which Lincoln apparently possessed, to his soft spoken but determined personality.

Daniel Day-Lewis finely balances Lincoln’s ‘quiet charm and likeability whilst also showing him as more than a man who has a way with words’

He portrays an intelligent, thoughtful man who is on the verge of making history and is contemplating what the impact of his Amendment will have on not only his country, but on him as a person too.

He finely balances Lincoln’s quiet charm and likeability, whilst also showing him as more than a man who has a way with words.

He reveals a steely drive in seeing his vision triumph through any means necessary, and he shows that Lincoln’s authority was never in question.

Although none of us have ever seen Abraham Lincoln walk or talk, we are convinced this is how he did it, Day Lewis completely transforms into the man. I would be hugely surprised if he doesn’t have his third Oscar come February 26th.

Finest character actors in American cinema

Some have complained that because his screen presence is so magnetic, that when he isn’t on screen the film suffers, yet I completely disagree.

Day Lewis is backed up with some of the finest character actors in American cinema, James Spader is particularly excellent as crude comic relief W.N Bilbo and steals many scenes he’s in.

There are even great actors in glorified cameos with the likes of Jared Harris and Jackie Earle Haley popping up ensuring the film drips with quality in every scene.

Special mention must go to Tommy Lee Jones’s performance as abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens. No one does the stone faced, curmudgeon, old man routine like Jones and here he is excellent as a politician who was a century ahead of his time.

There is a real enjoyment in watching him humiliate opposing politicians who spew vile, racist lies about African Americans.
Although he isn’t on screen for long his performance is a real highlight, one of many from the later career of the great Tommy Lee Jones, and he may have a realistic shot at another Oscar too for Best Supporting Actor.

A few gripes

There are few gripes I have with the film but one is the subplot involving Lincoln’s son Robert (Joseph Gordon Levitt) and his father’s refusal to let him enlist in the war effort.

Although the bits between the two are great, including a particularly effecting one at a veterans hospital, the scenes feel totally unnecessary.

They dilute the focus of the bigger and more important narrative and make it seem like Spielberg is trying to create drama where it isn’t needed when he has such a large canvas to work with already.

A final flaw I found is the question of Lincoln’s own ideas about slavery.

Historians have argued that Spielberg glosses over Lincoln’s more unlikable qualities, as it has been suggested that Uncle Abe was a latecomer to the anti-slavery movement and despised black people.

Although it is unheard of to ever question the “Great Emancipator” because of his achievements, it would have been extremely compelling, rewarding and justified to finally tackle this thorny issue in American history.

Although to address such a subject would probably be another film in its own right, it would have been nice for Spielberg to even allude to Lincolns opinion on the black race.

Instead we have him say to a former slave that he thinks he’ll “get use to them”, it seems like a huge missed opportunity to add another, more challenging dimension to Lincoln’s character instead of the God-like figure we are use to seeing.

Film is a triumph

Despite this the film is a triumph all around and it is no coincidence that it has 12 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director, and is likely to win a lot of them.

It took Spielberg around two decades to finally get the film made and all his painstaking work and research has paid off, as we get a restrained, thoughtful examination of one of the most important moments in American history and the man who lead the country to it.

Comments

3 Responses to Film Review: Is Lincoln worth the hype?

I would have to agree with Greg. That critique claims that Spielberg gets “lost” in time period and gets bogged down in his story, yet that surely cannot not be said for Schindler’s List. It is one the most harrowing and moving recreations of any point in history that has been created on film. His research and recreation of time periods are almost second to none with an extensive list of great examples, Munich, The Colour Purple, Empire of the Sun. Lincoln will now add to this list.

It criticises Spielberg for being a purveyor of cheap tricks and light entertainment, and I understand the complaints. Spielberg can be slightly repetitive, overly sentimental and its frustrating at times that he doesn’t tackle more meaningful films. We want more Amistad’s as opposed to War of the Worlds.

However the criticism then goes onto applaud Webb’s Amazing Spiderman which fits every blockbuster trope possible, and is frankly awful. Let us also not forget that even though Spielberg makes a lot of blockbusters that it was him who practically invented them in 1975 with Jaws. Therefore it was him who created the film language that we love about great blockbusters and he injected them with an artistry. Unfortunately Blockbusters are now a dime a dozen and most are just visual trash thrown at a screen to sell toys and make money. Spielbergs modern oeuvre can be accused of this too but his flourishes separate his films from the other hacks like Michael Bay. He masters in the genre and is a born storyteller, using every plot device and special effect to its best usage.

This isn’t even mentioning the great mans unopposed versatility as he has excelled in almost every genre. His films stretch from slapstick comedy, 1942 to sci fi, AI, to stop motion with Tin Tin. His standing in cinema as one of the greats is no fluke and I personally feel that many accusations thrown at him are part of a cinematic snobbery due to his popularity.

I love to see debate on here though, thats what we are trying to generate. Good discussion.

Speilberg may be over-rated, maybe a tad too sentimental for my taste, but he is a phenomenal director. Looking at the one-take chase scene in Tintin (for a modern example) proves that.

That review calls ‘Saving Private Ryan’ one of the greatest films of all time but ignores Speilberg’s best ‘Schindler’s List.’ I personally think the person writing that, for lack of a better term, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.